Category Archives: pollution

It seems San Francisco will soon have “free” green energy that isn’t “free” or very “green.” Instead of “free” and “green” we get this:

Monthly bills will increase by $84 to $180 annually

You’re signed up automatically and if you don’t opt out your stuck with the increase

Due to the unreliability of wind power and solar your electricity will still come from coal and gas power plants when those don’t work on windless and cloudy days.

The startup costs $19.5 million including $15 million placed in an escrow account to pay Shell Energy North America if the program is terminated before the contract expires in 4½ years.

San Francisco, touted as “the city that knows how” evidently only “knows how” to rip off the taxpayers. There are probably 19.5 million ways to spend that $19.5 million on things that would make San Francisco a better place to live than on overpriced faux green energy.

The city’s a mess in many places. Traffic’s a mess, the streets are a mess, the homeless are a mess, crime is a mess, there are many blighted places. Let’s not forget that the schools are taking it in the shorts thanks to Jerry Brown’s faux budget that recently fell apart and could also use that money.

Nope, in San Francisco politics it’s better to genuflect to the imaginary green energy god. Keeping PG & E who appears to be able to provide cleaner, more reliable and less expensive energy would have just been too simple compared to creating another SF bureaucracy that appears to be FUBAR before it even starts.

If you thought that the power going out a Candlestick Park during a nationally televised football game was an embarrassment just wait and see what happens, or doesn’t, as the case may be. No wonder the 49’ers want to move to Santa Clara.

Solar panels, touted by many to be a renewable energy panacea that will rid the planet of all those nasty coal-fired power plants, may be a bigger boondoggle than we already thought. We’ve already complained that they do not appear in many instances to provide a return in investment.

It now appears that the time they provide energy before replacement is required is dramatically less than claimed. Thus shortening not only the life of the panels and the electricity generated, but also reducing the return on investment.

If you listen to the mostly-Chinese manufacturers, solar panels work great. They can be expected to degrade about 0.5% a year. So that is how we build the economic models to finance, insure and subsidize the larger solar systems.

In the real world, we are just starting to find out how bogus many of those predictions are. The National Renewable Energy Laboratory says that panels can degrade as much as 4.5% a year. Or more. Put that in your pro forma and see what your banker and insurance agent — or Congressman — say about that.

While we see claims that average solar panels will last 25 to 30 years, the aforementioned claim of 0.5% per year means that solar panels should last an astounding 200 years (100% ÷ 0.5%). At the realistic rate of 4.5% per year they will only last about 22 years before replacement is needed (100% ÷ 4.5%), which is not even the 25 to 30 currently claimed by many and not even remotely close to 200 years.

It gets worse folks. They don’t only degrade, it appears they also can literally fall apart and it doesn’t take very long.

In Italy last year, “they discovered that after one year in the field, over 90% of the (solar panels) from a one megawatt project began to delaminate and ended up on the ground.”

That is a lot of wasted money. 90% down the tubes after being used for only one year. No return on investment and very little ‘free’ electricity generated. All that is left is an eyesore that is a pile of toxic waste, wasted tax dollars and perhaps a tax deduction for a business loss.

We are adverse to the lies about what renewable energy costs and what it’s capabilities are. We’re also adverse to the physical and financial messes left when solar and wind-power are abandoned. We’re extremely adverse to the rush to install solar and wind-power without having full knowledge about the effects. Look at the carnage left in the previous two links to see what we’re talking about.

California seems to be leading the rush off the proverbial cliff via the implementation of AB32, California’s cap & trade law, that mandates power providers to generate 33% of their power from renewable (green) sources by a not too distant 2020.

With many large solar projects planned in California, it would seem to be a logical move to slow down and find out what our money is being spent on and what the return on investment will be as opposed to rushing in head first, only to find another government mandated, costly boondoggle. To know what happens to government mandated boondoggles one only has to look at the Solyndra and Evergreen Solar fiascos.

You can safely bet that when these solar energy plants fall apart at the seams, the taxpayers and energy consumers of California and other states will get stuck paying for the bill. It’s probably also a safe bet that the messes left at abandoned solar and wind farms will be there for decades as a reminder of what happens when the government gets involved in what should be private enterprise.

Last week the world’s media focused attention on the ‘Fukushima 50’- those brave workers exposed to radiation contamination as they clean up after the explosion at Fukushima’s nuclear plant.

We examine the health risks posed from radiation poisoning by such a disaster based on a unique 12-year scientific study at Chernobyl; conclusions that show just how well the natural environment has fared a quarter of a century on from the world’s worst nuclear disaster.

Two top radiation experts, Professors Ronald K. Chesser and Robert J. Baker, in creating their joint study, ‘Growing Up with Chernobyl’ painstakingly studied and measured the true aftermath of Chernobyl. These world leading radiation experts present an astonishing new insight that no only shows how robust nature really is, but also exposes the extreme anti-science bias that for decades has ramped up unproven fears about the dangers of nuclear power.

I felt compelled to write this article in light of the media’s scant concern over Japan’s worst earthquake and tsunami that took over 10,000 lives. Despite the still unfolding tragedy from the earthquake and tsunami, the world media has instead chosen to focus on a nuclear accident where no one is reported killed from radiation science proves the outcome is likely to less terrible than is being portrayed.

I find I’m not alone in thinking that the world’s press has its priorities skewed and needs to take another hard look at the science.

In this regard I want to draw readers’ attention to ‘Growing Up with Chernobyl’, a study that will help provide some comfort to the people of Japan and which demonstrates a positive legacy from Chernobyl; a place where nature has shown a remarkable propensity not only to bounce back, but to provide a rich new bounty.

Green Opportunists Will Never Waste a Good Catastrophe

Frankly, no one can look at TV broadcasts depicting the heroics of the ‘Fukushima 50’ and not feel desperately sad for the future health prospects of the clean up workers who may face radiation sickness and the associated cancerous consequences.

But what is infuriating is that we can conclude from those images that to the media the tsunami and earthquake weren’t “bad enough” to hold their attention despite the ongoing crisis for Japan’s population with ever-increasing suffering due to starvation and hypothermia. No, the focus is all nuclear now.

As Christopher Booker cogently reports in The Daily Telegraph (March 19, 2011) eco-propagandists have been hard at work drumming up fears of a nuclear disaster for Japan “worse than Chernobyl.” But if we look at the science and not the media frenzy then there truly is no prospect of any such catastrophe to match the unprecedented meltdown at Chernobyl’s Reactor IV on April 26, 1986.

Nonetheless, that green urban legend about Chernobyl killing “millions” still survives. However, two undaunted professors, academic researchers skilled in radiation contamination, have collected all the facts to squash that fallacy after spending 12 long years painstakingly probing the aftermath of Chernobyl.

As with their fellow scientists battling to overcome the hysteria over global warming, Chesser and Baker have had to contend with an endless tide of green propaganda and censorship. In their quest for real science the pair admit they learned “tough lessons about politics, bias and the challenges of doing good science” on this similarly polemicized issue.

Chesser is a professor of biological sciences and director of the Center for Environmental Radiation Studies at Texas Tech University. Much of his current research is in reverse-engineering radioactive releases from nuclear accidents. He continues to work at Chernobyl and is currently examining the radioactive contamination and human health issues surrounding nuclear facilities near Baghdad, Iraq.

Robert J. Baker is Horn Professor of Biological Sciences Research at Texas Tech and affirmed world-leading research scientist. His research program evaluates molecular variations in organisms exposed to Chernobyl radiation.

Chernobyl Recovers to Become Haven for Endangered Species

Contrary to their initial expectations, Baker and Chesser were astounded to find that although the local wildlife around Chernobyl had undergone unprecedented levels of radiation “all the animals seemed physically normal….This was true for pretty much every creature we examined.”

After the initial decline of the animal populations, which were decimated by radioactive fallout, local wildlife is now thriving. The two were completely taken aback by the lack of evidence for any genetic mutations, as had been the expectation of most theorists.

The esteemed experts asserted,

“We also compared the genetic variations of populations inside the [contaminated] Zone with those from relatively uncontaminated areas, and we found no evidence of increased mutation rates from exposure to radioactivity.”

They found the most likely reason why Chernobyl has made such a remarkable recovery, “Radiation doses have declined precipitously since the accident—less than 3 percent of the initial radioactivity remains.”

Thus it seems, radiation is more quickly dispersed in nature than previous estimates had thought.

In fact, confounding all expectations the Chernobyl region has become a refuge for released populations of Przewalski’s horse and European bison; while the population densities of Russian wild boar are 10 to 15 times greater in the ‘Danger Zone’ than in adjacent areas inhabited by people. In addition, endangered black storks and white-tailed eagles are also more common in the “ Zone.”

The preponderance of such rich diversity of life has forced scientists to conclude that this so-called “dead zone” has effectively become a fertile natural preserve.

Good Nuclear News is Bad for Big Green Media

Despite these incredible findings being published in the prominent American Scientist Journal (Volume 94) this was not the kind of science that broadcasters wanted to show us.

Instead of being hailed as champions of science both researchers were met with hostility and mocked for going against the established ideas. The impartial professors lamented:

“We couldn’t find a single story that tried to explain the enormous difficulties of determining an accurate number for the excess cancer deaths caused by the radiation fallout from Chernobyl. The press did not attempt to explain the differences in opinions between scientists or the contradictory results of research on animals exposed to radiation.”

What they saw, just as with the great global warming debate, a propaganda war is constantly in play; ‘Big Green’ still insists on hyping the myth that a million died from Chernobyl when, in fact, independent studies put the actual death toll in the range of 38 to 4,000 (e.g. see the2005 report by the International Atomic Energy Agency).

Undeterred the two experts insist their unexpected findings will have

“…. profound implications for society. If there is an elevated mutation rate and loss of health, then appropriate measures should be taken to protect ourselves. No one would argue with that. But we must be mindful that the costs of over-regulation can be extreme.”

Backing this argument are the numbers that most starkly expose nuclear hysteria as per the statistics of U.S. death tolls:

Nuclear power plants……………. 0 deaths per year

Wind turbines (2008)…………….41 deaths per year

Candles………………..………..126 deaths per year

Bicycles (2008)………..……….716 deaths per year

Agriculture…………….……..1,300 deaths per year

Motorcycles …………………2,500 deaths per year

Car Phones (2002)……………2,500 deaths per year

Alcohol………………….…100,000 deaths per year

Tobacco……………………500,000 deaths per year

So why are broadcasters stubbornly stuck in the great rush to dismantle our western way of life?

The ‘Fukushima 50’ are undoubtedly brave and perhaps also knowledgeable about the dangers they face. So if you want to be better informed about the likely risks posed by a radiation accident then read more from ‘Growing Up with Chernobyl.’

OK, so what’s with the title? Well like it says, if you pollute under the guise of being green or saving planet Earth from that nasty old CO2 it’s perfectly OK, no one will scream bloody murder. While George W. Bush was always “in the pockets of big oil,” no one will write an article about President Obama being in the pockets of ‘big green.’

See, if your company is an oil company or a coal power plant, than you’re very bad and evil because you spew out pollution. If you’re going to sequester CO2, which now according to EPA edict is a pollutant, then it’s perfectly OK with most of the greentards, regardless what the consequences are, and it appears there may be some, too, possibly big ones.

My question is, that if this is now technically a pollutant (don’t talk to me call the EPA), then why are we allowing this to be injected underground when we don’t know if it’s safe or not, don’t know if it will leak back out or not and have no clue what may happen in the future as far as contamination goes?

The new CO2 storage project in the US

Per Bloomberg Newsweek we now have carbon storage coming to western Illinois……

Developers behind the long-running FutureGen project said Monday carbon dioxide generated by a western Illinois power plant they plan to refit with experimental low-emissions coal technology will be pumped into the ground at a nearby site for underground storage.

OK so what else? Well, to reiterate, it seems we have two sets of rules going. If you want to build an oil pipeline, it’s evil and polluting and the greentards will sue the socks off of anyone who tries to in an effort to delay and stop one from being built. But, if you want to build a pipeline to pump CO2 to the point where it will be sequestered? Well, I don’t see any lawsuits or hear anyone much griping, so it must also be OK with the greentards because it’s related to curing global warming and it’s ‘green.’

The companies working with the Department of Energy on FutureGen said they’d chosen a spot in Morgan County over three competing sites around the state in part because it was by far the closest to the Ameren Corporation-owned plant in Meredosia, Ill. They say that could save up to $250 million in pipeline construction costs on a project now budgeted at $1.3 billion.

What about the place they will be sequestering all this nasty old CO2? Is it safe? Does anyone really have a clue here? Or, are we operating on touchy-feely-making-money feelings and reality be damned?

“We did geophysical surveys there that confirmed that it looks to be well suited for safe CO2 storage,” he said. “Second, it’s in close proximity — in fact in the same county — as the Meredosia power plant.”

Must be, they said so. But if it isn’t? Well, seems they hedged their bets some on that, which doesn’t exactly make me feel all warm and snug about it……

In all, he said, 390 million tons of carbon dioxide would be stored at the site over 30 years. The gas would be pumped into an underground formation known as the Mt. Simon Sandstone, which is about 850-feet thick at the Morgan County site. That lies under another rock formation, the Eau Claire Shale, he said, which is several hundred feet thick and should serve as a “cap rock” to seal the storage site.

Illinois law shields the project from liability to some degree, but U.S. Environmental Protection Agency rules provide for up to 50 more years of monitoring, Humphreys said.

Ahhhh, “should” doesn’t sound very promising to me. What if it doesn’t and all this CO2 starts leaking out? Oh, they have a shield to protect them courtesy of Illinois, my how nice.

It appears I’m not the only one wondering about whether this is safe or not either. From MyJournalCourrier we get this from the locals…..

More than 300 people in the Alexander community, many of them family farmers, have expressed disfavor with a carbon dioxide storage hub in eastern Morgan County.

To many, it’s about more than safety; it’s protection of a way of life that has been shared across generations.

Andy Davenport, who owns land east of the 1,000 carbon dioxide sequestration site planned for Morgan County, believes it is an unproven technology and some of the official literature he read indicates that if the project is a success, the FutureGen Alliance would look to expand the site from 1,000 acres to 10,000 acres, which would essentially swallow his farm.

Again, we read about this company seeking protection from liability from the government, which only increases my doubts about exactly how safe this is…….

The state would release the alliance from liability if the group operated within the state-mandated parameters of injecting carbon dioxide. To add additional buffers, the alliance devised a four-tier plan to ensure that any possible property damage would not be a resident’s responsibility.

The first tier covers minor equipment or pipe break damage, which the FutureGen Alliance would pay for. The second is an industrial insurance policy of at least $10 million to cover larger expenses. The group will also put money into a trust fund for each ton of carbon dioxide injected in the ground to cover costs outside the industrial insurance policy.

Ultimately, if all three of those fell through, the state would back it.

Funny I don’t seem to note anything about who’s going to pay if this ruins land and kills animals or possibly even people. Must be one of those it’s all about making money deals that will swiftly file bankruptcy if the shit hits the fan and/or get some cover from the government.

Problems in Saskatchewan Being Ignored?

The raison d’être for this article is that it appears we already have what looks like it could be a major problem with CO2 sequestration in Canada as it appears to be leaking, has forced at least one family off their land and has farmers in the area worried. What I can’t fathom is that in all the articles I read about this project in Illinois I don’t see any references to this already being diagnosed as potentially dangerous in Canada. Per CBC News in Canada……

A Saskatchewan farm couple says greenhouse gases that were supposed to be stored permanently underground are leaking out, killing animals and sending groundwater foaming to the surface like shaken-up soda pop.

Cameron Kerr says ponds on his land have developed algae blooms, clots of foam and scum, while small animals have been found dead a few metres away.

There is a report on file now that tries to minimize escaping CO2 as having any effect on things, but some aren’t buying it…….

A Petroleum Technology Research Centre (PTRC) report released last week, which attempts to rule out the possibility of a CO2 leak near Weyburn, Saskatchewan, omits critical information and fails to provide concrete answers, Ecojustice said today after reviewing of the document.

Well, that I can remember I have not heard of Ecojustice, but at least they appear to be on top of this one. I have to agree the PTRC report might be a few pages short of a novel……

“The PTRC response is incomplete and ignores important factors such as the presence of abandoned oil wells, the presence of faults and fractures and the high pressures under which CO2 is injected,” said Ecojustice staff lawyer Barry Robinson, who is working with the Kerrs. “Anyone familiar with Calmar, Alberta, knows that abandoned wells are not always properly sealed,” added Robinson. “The PTRC has not conducted any field investigations of the integrity of abandoned wells in the Weyburn area.”

It appears to me that in general things seem to be very one-sided about pollution and it depends on whose doing the polluting as to whether anyone complains or not. Back to ‘green’ pollution is OK but any other pollution is bad. You can damn well bet that if this was an oil company fracking natural gas wells that the greens would be all over it, as would the mainstream media and the press releases and lawsuits would be flying.

However, since it’s injecting CO2 underground to save Gaia, no one seems to be making much noise about it, or even looking into it. Which is yet more CO2 Insanity. We again see that in the rush to be green we have most everyone focusing on those green dollars and seemingly forgetting about common sense. They’re perhaps on their way to creating larger problems than they claim to be solving. It seems that two greens make you rich, but not necessarily right.

I hope this doesn’t cause similar problems in Illinois due to leaping before looking. If it does you can bet that as usual, the buck will be passed around and around and that no one will be held responsible when the pond on your farm starts fizzing like a shaken can of Coke.

Here is a link to the website at the Globe and Mail with 10 photos of what this is allegedly causing.

Rate this:

Yes, I didn’t believe it when I read it either, it seems we hit a new low here with things that climate change will cause. Per todays Telegraph we get this headline, which pretty much says it all…..Now scientists claim climate change could give you cancer (in the week Doomsday warning of rising sea levels was rubbished),” which leads me to believe that as a final act of desperation they may claim it causes genital warts. So where’s this cancer coming from? Why it’s those melting glaciers that….ummmmm…aren’t melting!

Melting glaciers and ice sheets are releasing cancer-causing pollutants into the air and oceans, scientists say.

The long-lasting chemicals get into the food chain and build up in people’s bodies – triggering tumours, heart disease and infertility.

The warning comes in a new international study into the links between climate change and a class of man-made toxins called persistent organic pollutants.

They include pesticides such as DDT and chemicals called PCBs used in electrical goods.

Donald Cooper, of the United Nations Environment Programme which published the report at the UN climate talks in Cancun, Mexico, said melting glaciers and ice sheets were releasing POPs trapped years ago into the air and seas.

OK, so what do the seas have to do with melting glaciers that aren’t melting?

He added: ‘It is a problem in all parts of the world – they do not respect borders. They travel thousands of miles and they continue to build.

‘In the past pollutants have travelled long distances and become trapped in ice in glaciers and ice sheets. But as the ice melts, or when temperatures go up, they are released back into the seas and atmosphere.

They travel thousands of miles? Do they have little cars or planes that carry them around? Please tell me how could this happen. According to the warmistas the glaciers have been melting since the 1850 start of the industrial revolution. Now with all the melting how could this be trapped in glaciers? But wait! They’re not melting either? Which is it? Talk about talking out of both sides of your ass, this has to be it.

You can read the rest of this bullshit at the source below. They just keep getting more desperate and keep sinking further and further into CO2 Insanity don’t they?

The California Air Resources Board (CARB), located in the Libtard State is getting ready to dictate cap & trade regulations that will guarantee that industry will flee for greener (aka money-making) pastures along with plenty of jobs.

California aims to cap total emissions of gases linked to global warming and let factories and power plants trade for an ever-decreasing number of permits to emit gases. In theory, market forces will drive efficiency in the system, known as cap and trade.

There is still a debate about the economic merits of the plan, which planners in the Friday draft (PDF) estimate will shave about 0.1 percent from annual state growth.

0.1%? Well, based on other problems at CARB I’d have to question that figure based upon the old adage “figures don’t lie but liars figure.”

The Chicago Climate Exchange (CCX) is bailing on cap & trade. Al Gore used to be part owner of this, but the original owners bailed out and sold it for $600 million dollars before everyone figured out cap & trade was in the toilet. So why is California so hot to trot when even Al Gore’s given up on it? Are we going to lead the nation in more stupidity?

Cap & Trade has been about declared dead on arrival in the United States Congress, yet the nuts and flakes who run CARB are bound and determined to drive off that cliff just like Thelma & Louise. The result will be a rough landing for California citizens, already struggling to pay the bills and trying to fight unemployment in the 20% range.

If you want to keep watching California sink to the point where Mexico won’t even want it back, then by all means vote no on Prop 23. If you want jobs, income and people paying taxes the VOTE YES on PROP 23 and save California from a slow death. If AB32 remains in effect, a large earthquake will be a kinder way to end to the state’s life than decades of suffering the CO2 Insanity caused by AB32 will be.

So, here’s how good the “science” behind California’s Global Warming Law AB32 probably is. The California Air Resources Board has beyond screwed-up their diesel regulations. Based upon “grossly miscalculated pollution levels” of only 340% over reality, which was used to create onerous regulations. Yes, you read right, 340%. Was this stupidity? Gross negligence? Gross incompetence? Outright fraud? All of the aforementioned? Read and decide for yourself.

Do they care about the people and businesses of California? Probably not. They appear to love spending other people’s money on non-existent problems because it’s really all about control and forcing you to live their greentard lifestyle, while increasing the size of their bureaucracy, regardless if it’s based in reality or not.

From the San Francisco Chronicle we get the following information about this travesty from a government agency, run by appointed (not elected) officials who appear to be hell-bent to ruin the state’s economy.

California grossly miscalculated pollution levels in a scientific analysis used to toughen the state’s clean air standards, and scientists have spent the past several months revising data and planning a significant weakening of the landmark regulation, The Chronicle has found.

The pollution estimate in question was too high – by 340 percent, according to the California Air Resources Board, the state agency charged with researching and adopting air quality standards. The estimate was a key part in the creation of a regulation adopted by the Air Resources Board in 2007, a rule that forces businesses to cut diesel emissions by replacing or making costly upgrades to heavy-duty, diesel-fueled off-road vehicles used in construction and other industries.

Of course the CARB is hiding out and trying to make feeble excuses to cover their asses. Heaven forbid it could be their mistake……except that idea gets busted, too……

The staff of the powerful and widely respected Air Resources Board said the overestimate is largely due to the board calculating emissions before the economy slumped, which halted the use of many of the 150,000 diesel-exhaust spewing vehicles in California. Independent researchers, however, found huge overestimates in the Air Board’s work on diesel emissions and attributed the flawed work to a faulty method of calculation – not the economic downturn.

The resident Warmer-in-Chief, Mary Nichols, of course appears to be in a total state of denial about this, like she just couldn’t ‘be wrong, couldn’t be lying, couldn’t be playing warmer politics with people’s lives via use of gross miscalculations, perhaps calculated to enforce her greentard agenda.

Mary Nichols, chairwoman of the California Air Resources Board, offered no explanation when The Chronicle questioned her about the diesel emissions miscalculation.

Miscalculation? Bernie Madoff wasn’t even “miscalculating” percentages that high for returns from his bogus investment scheme! No this has the appearance of outright fraud. We even seem to have the classic denial going on.

Nichols was emphatic, though, when asked whether she has concerns about other scientific calculations made by Air Board scientists.

“No, no, no, no, no, no, no and no,” she said.

I wonder of Bernie said that when the Feds asked him about his Ponzi Scheme? Or, perhaps she’s been listening to too much of the Amy Winehouse song “NO NO NO?”

Mary Nichols even failed to provide the knowledge to the board that the guy who came up with the numbers got his “Ph. D.” from a mail order college with a post office box. Talk about “unprecedented!” We now have phony “scientists” providing evidence for phony regulations. No wonder this state is such a screwed-up mess. The government is totally out of control.

Roberts and other board members were not told by Nichols that the scientist, Hien Tran, lied about earning a Ph.D. from UC Davis before they voted in favor of regulations based in part on his science. That vote took place in December 2008.

Nichols, who acknowledges she knew about the falsification prior to the vote, has apologized for not sharing that information with her fellow board members.

She knew and deliberately withheld pertinent information crucial to the vote. Frankly I think this woman is dangerous and should be immediately stripped of her position and that they should be some sort of Grand Jury inquiry into what, by appearance, is fraudulent behavior. I’d really like to know why she’s obviously being covered by someone or some group of people as she seems to have some kind of diplomatic immunity.

Robert Harley, a UC Berkeley professor did a study that outed the gross errors made by CARB.

While Air Board officials and other defenders of the Air Board science point to the economy as a major factor in the overestimates, Harley found that prior to the recession the board’s estimates of nitrous oxide were too high by a factor of 4.5 and its estimate of particulate matter was off by a factor of 3.1, an extraordinarily high amount to be off scientifically.

“Extraordinary?” “Scientifically?” How about perhaps “fraudulently” or “grossly negligent? You’re talking about a powerful bureaucracy that’s obviously been running amok costing the tax payers of California a fortune, driving business out of the state and even putting people out of business. You can bet if I ran a business like that in California I’d be a guest of the penal system for a long time.

There are also diesel truck regulations created by CARB that have been forcing truckers out of business, costing them tens of thousands to have their trucks retrofitted or having to spend the same or more buying newer model trucks that meet their regulations. How much of this is based on reality and how much is based upon fantasy, fraud, gross incompetence or gross negligence?

They already dropped the premature death rate from diesel exhaust from 18,000 to 9,200 and frankly I’d have to question if that is a big crock, too? As of this minute their track record is in the garbage can and I fail to see how anyone could believe anything coming out of CARB. Evidently most of our elected officials in Sacramento must be in a coma to let this slide by without even as much as a whimper from most of them.

You could question the same about AB32, California’s global warming law that will end up costing billions, driving out business and will do basically not much of anything to stop non-existent global warming. How much of this was based upon dis-information from CARB? I’d already say it’s based on piss-poor science and to say the very least I’d question any of CARB’s input that went into the drafting of this law.

People involved in this are also wondering if CARB has been hiding out and delaying revised regulations so that AB32 will pass. Nichols already has deliberately withheld a very pertinent fact from the board, which makes me wonder if she wouldn’t do this to the voters?

If you don’t want your bank account sucked dry via increased cost of gas, fuel, electricity and other onerous regulations dreamed up by someone with an obvious agenda, I’d urge you to vote yes on Prop 23 and put the brakes on AB32. After this, I’d question anyone’s sanity who didn’t think that there should be a lot of investigating going on about the so-called science behind a lot of California’s clean air and CO2 regulations before we decide upon any course of action.

You can read about the whole sordid affair at the source below. The Chronicle has my sincere thanks for bringing this to light.